Randy Thomasson, that sanctimonious self-righteous christian biggot is at it again! Under the guise of a California constitutional amendment seeking to define marriage as one man and one woman, he actually proposes to strip California of all domestic partner protections.

Luckily, Bill Lockyear, CA State Attorney General is not so easily fooled. In a brilliant move, he has used his authority to issue a "summary statement" which would clearly spell out what is actually being proposed.

Until now, I have never understood what compels people to political violence. I now feel the frustration and anger at seeing my life under attack by narrow-minded religious zealots. You want to protect marriage? Don't get divorced. Stop making the gay community a scapegoat for the decline in so-called (straight) family values. Leave the gay community alone to live our lives in peace. Don't start denying us hospital visitation rights and partner health benefits because you think that this should be the sole domain of straight married couples. I caught the interview with Thomasson on this evening's news. I wanted to choke that sanctimonious bastard with my own two hands.

Actually I was referring to starting to comprehend the anger and frustration that compels some to political violence. I don't condone it, but I'm starting to at least understand it. While I'm not espousing violence at all, I wish the Gay Community would fight back with more than just rhetoric. I think its time we paid a visit to that jackass Thomasson and his goose stepping christian facists, and let them know we're not going to take this crap any more. Its time we started camping out on their doorsteps, picketing and protesting in their own backyards. Damn, where is ActUp when you need them?

I would say that this is just the first step. The next would be to prohibit heterosexual sex outside wedlock (e.g. through punishing landlords as "supporting prostitution" or for pimping if they permit unmarried couples having sex on their premisses, we had such a law in Germany up to the 1970s)

Why is it that things have to be made black and white? Gays have just as much right to fight for their rights and their issues as the Christian community. Why is it that every time the "Christian Right" tries to push for what they honestly believe is right, they have to be labeled as biggots and facists? They want what they think is best just the same as the Gays want what they think is best. We can choose what side we're on, but we don't have to make the other side sound like demons. Everyone in the fight is using the same political means, just with a different end in mind.

Quoting Kykevin54 (Reply 4):We can choose what side we're on, but we don't have to make the other side sound like demons.

That is truly a naive statement, and belies a fundamental lack of comprehension of the basic issue. When the gay community fights for what it believes, it comes at absolutely no expense to the Christian community. We in no way diminish your capacity to live your lives, worship, marry or divorce as you see fit.

However, when the so-called "Christian Right" pushes for what they believe it comes directly at my personal expense! This initiative seeks to repeal my ability to visit my partner in the hospital, my ability to provide healthcare for my partner, the ability to adopt and raise a child, the ability for my partner and I to enjoy a life filled the same benefits and priveleges that married couples enjoy. These are all things that come at no expense to anyone, yet the Christian Right seeks to deny me these basic rights, solely in the name of pursuing their facist agenda.

We are fighting for the basic dignity of equal rights. The Christian Right is fighting to deny any and all rights. That, my friend, is the difference!

Not everyone has a private jet and a Rolls-Royce, so what? Not every person in life will get exactly what they want or even what they deserve. The gay community sees it as morally wrong to deny rights to gay couples. That is absolutely fine. They are entitled to that belief. The Christian right sees it as morally wrong to give rights to gay couples. There's the conflict. Both sides believe that they are right and that they have the mandate to seek for what they think is best.

I will go ahead and state, since you seemed to jump to a conclusion that I was a Christian facist, that I am in favor of Gay Unions. I just hate to see people fight and call names like this. Somebody will win and somebody will lose. It's part of life. If the right wing wins on this issue, the gay community will lose, and vice versa. Everyday, people from all different walks of life deal with unjust things. If the right wingers win, there will be some unjust things that occur. However, justice, like right and wrong, are in the eye of the beholder. If the gay community wins, the right wing will feel that a great injustice has been handed to them.

That is exactly the problem. We are not denying Christians a right to hold what ever beliefs they choose. But in this country, no group or religion has the right to impose their beliefs on the rest of society. Holding religious beliefs is one thing. Trying to impose beliefs and legislating based on those beliefs is something else entirely, and it must be opposed vigorously at every possible opportunity.

My words don't demonize the Christian Right. Their own actions do that to themselves.

Quoting PA110 (Reply 7):But in this country, no group or religion has the right to impose their beliefs on the rest of society.

No, but voters sure do, and if you think that religious values can be kept out of the voting both, then you're dreaming. Majority rules, I'm afraid. Sometimes, the majority chooses poorly. But if we're not okay with the awful injustices that occur because of it, then we better move to North Korea. I hear that it's much better there.

What matters here is not what 'others' want [and, frankly, I do not believe the majority of our population would agree with limiting the civil rights of their fellow gay and lesbian citizens], but what YOU believe is ethical, moral and fair. Comparing same-sex civil marriage to wanting a 'private jet and a Rolls-Royce' is utterly ridiculous.

I have absolutely no doubt the struggle for GLBT rights in our society is THE civil rights issue of our lifetime. Slowly, but surely, the rest of the world is waking up to the same realization.

Quoting Kykevin54 (Reply 6):The gay community sees it as morally wrong to deny rights to gay couples. That is absolutely fine. They are entitled to that belief. The Christian right sees it as morally wrong to give rights to gay couples. There's the conflict.

From what I understand, in the US, the trend is towards giving rights rather than denying them. In other words, people have rights above and beyond what's stated in the Constitution unless there is sound legal reason for them not to have that right. That's the main difference - the Christian view runs against that philosophy, the gay view does not.

Quoting Kykevin54 (Reply 8):Quoting PA110 (Reply 7):
But in this country, no group or religion has the right to impose their beliefs on the rest of society.

No, but voters sure do,

Nope, not even them. That's what "protection of the minority from the majority" means. Of course, the voters pick who is in power, but those in power still have a responsibility to protect the rights of ALL citizens.

Quoting Kykevin54 (Reply 8):No, but voters sure do, and if you think that religious values can be kept out of the voting both, then you're dreaming. Majority rules, I'm afraid. Sometimes, the majority chooses poorly. But if we're not okay with the awful injustices that occur because of it, then we better move to North Korea. I hear that it's much better there

WRONG, WRONG, and REALLY INCORRECT.

You need one of Gigneil's lessons in how a REPUBLIC, i.e. our government, works. We are not a pure democracy. As a very simple example, if "majority rules" were really the case, then Al Gore would have been elected president in 2000, yes? He won 500,000 more votes.

On the contrary, our system of government was set up to protect the rights of minorities. If "majority rules" were really the case, racial segregation would still be allowed.

Fundamental Christians DO NOT have a "right" to oppress gays and lesbians... even if it is "what they believe is right"... and that is what their actions are...oppression, and that is why gays are upset and refer to them as bigots... because their intentions are to limit rights to a group of citizens based solely on the nature of those people. Gays, on the other hand, have never sought to limit Christians from practicing their religion.

Quoting Kykevin54 (Reply 4):Why is it that every time the "Christian Right" tries to push for what they honestly believe is right, they have to be labeled as biggots and facists? They want what they think is best just the same as the Gays want what they think is best.

But what we think is right, only affects us. What the Christian right believes is right does not only affect them. Their beliefs seek to legally marginalize a group of people who are different from them.

Don't equate our struggle for our own rights, versus their attempts to deny us any.

What the Christian right wants to do is shove their moral principles upon everyone else, irrespective of whether we as Americans believe in them or not. As a gay American, I'm not asking the Christian right to change their beliefs. They can believe that I'm going to hell and hold all their other principles dear.

You don't like me as a gay person? Don't invite me over.

But don't attempt to strip me of my relationships, my job, my home, my privacy through legislative means - which is what they strive to do

Again, no it doesn't. Majority sucks. You can't have a free society with majority rules.

This isn't a democracy. This is a republic. There are safeguards in place to prevent someone like you from stripping me of my freedoms. You want a democracy, go back to ancient Greece and do nothing but vote on every little thing that happens.

Here in lies one of your problems. Unfortunately, despite the amount of air time they get in the media, I don't think Act Up represents the majority of the gay community. Furthermore, unfortunately, the general populace sees Act Up as representative of the gay community. This is not a good thing. I do believe that the message that Act Up tried to spread is a good one, but their tactics are a total turn off to the community at large.
Having sex on the steps of St Patrick's Cathedral during Gay Pride Parade to make a point, really doesn't. It makes them look like the stereotype that they are so desperately trying to shake. A straight couple doing the same thing wouldn't be tolerated, so why should Act Up think any different, just because they are gay?

I applaude Bill Lockyear's actions to help cut the knees off this nutjob Thomasson.
The unfortunate thing about people like him, and others (Fred Phelps, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, et al) is that it works in the same way as Act Up in shapeing peoples perceptions. Just as people look at Act Up as representative of the gay community, others also see these sanctimonious pin heads as representative of Christians.

Nobody wins here.

Russ

My glass is neither 1/2 empty nor 1/2 full, rather, the glass itself is twice as big as it should be.

Quoting Dtwclipper (Reply 16):I would watch carefully the outcome of the lawsuits in Michigan that have arisen since last November since the passage of Prop 2.

Don't know if there's a lawsuit, but Issue 1 last year in Ohio-the one that got all the religious loonies out to bash gays and vote for Bush-has had chilling effects on domestic partner issues. Several women have tried to bring suit against a live-in partner for assult, but, as predicted, many judges aren't allowing the cases in court because of Issue 1, and the feeling it affects even straight domestic partner cases.

I think eventually Issue 1 in Ohio-which was just a redundancy, in may regards to an earlier initiative passed by The Taliban...err, the Ohio Legislature, banning gay unions, will be seen as unconstitutional.

I have no problem with homosexual domestic partners getting benefits, but heterosexual domestic partners should be eligible for benefits as well.

Why should I have to marry my boyfriend in an official capacity to meld my life with his? Yes, we have the LEGAL ability to "marry" but what if we don't want to? Or what if my partner's former spouse won't sign divorce papers (that's not the case with me-- he's never been married-- but I have seen this as an issue with a few couples)

We are committed to one another as much as any of my gay friends who are coupled off are.

Quoting 767Lover (Reply 18):I have no problem with homosexual domestic partners getting benefits, but heterosexual domestic partners should be eligible for benefits as well.

The irony of the Christian right crusade against domestic partner rights/benefits for homosexual couples is that it impacts a large number of unmarried heterosexual couples. An interesting bit of information that rarely sees much press coverage or discussion.

Stop drop and roll will not save you in hell. --- seen on a church marque in rural Virginia

Quoting 767Lover (Reply 18):I have no problem with homosexual domestic partners getting benefits, but heterosexual domestic partners should be eligible for benefits as well.

Not in Michigan my friend. The law here, again open to interpretation, does not recognize opposite sex domestic partnerships.

"Proposal 2 is a state constitutional amendment that defines marriage between one man and one woman as the only agreement recognized as a marriage, in effect banning same-sex marriage.
.

Bidwell and opponents say the last six words of the ballot proposal - "or similar union for any purpose" - will affect opposite-sex domestic unions, as well, and businesses' abilities to attract workers."

I guess the Religious Right feels good about this too. Their concept of marriage is the only way!

Quoting Jaysit (Reply 13):What the Christian right wants to do is shove their moral principles upon everyone else, irrespective of whether we as Americans believe in them or not. As a gay American, I'm not asking the Christian right to change their beliefs. They can believe that I'm going to hell and hold all their other principles dear.

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 14):Yes. And fortunately, when that happens, we have checks and balances to prevent it.

Not always. The minority of people in the nation think that a Republican president and congress are poor choices. However, there are no checks and balances to take them out unless they actually break the law. The majority, in this case, makes the final decision regardless of what any minority group may think. That same voting block can change constitutions to make sure that anti-gay union laws are not illegal. It has already happened in a few states with more to come most likely.

This is going to be my last post in this thread, but I would really feel for somebody in here that actually supported the gay union ban. I've been bashed around enough for just attempting to bring some civility back to the argument. Good luck guys.

Quoting Kykevin54 (Reply 6):Somebody will win and somebody will lose. It's part of life. If the right wing wins on this issue, the gay community will lose, and vice versa. Everyday, people from all different walks of life deal with unjust things. If the right wingers win, there will be some unjust things that occur. However, justice, like right and wrong, are in the eye of the beholder. If the gay community wins, the right wing will feel that a great injustice has been handed to them.

Like Fred, Neil and others have said, no it doesn't. Democracy is a great concept, but the inherent tyrany of the majority brings in the concept of Constitutionalism. Constitutions are there to protect the rights of minorities. Our Constitution does a very good job of that. Certain politicians and judges don't do a good enough job of upholding that idea.